Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • BankFodder
      The Museum of Homelessness -- @our_MoH

      By BankFodder · Posted

      Come and engage with homelessness   Museum of Homelessness MUSEUMOFHOMELESSNESS.ORG The award-winning Museum of Homelessness (MoH) was founded in 2015 and is run by people with direct experience of homelessness. A very different approach. If you're in London you should go and see them
    • dx100uk
      SJP letter from courts - Car tax fine

      By dx100uk · Posted

      You have of course checked the car is now taxed and the £68 is stated against  the same reg?  If the tax for the same car did over lap, then I can't see you having an issue pleading not guilty Dx
    • dx100uk
      Private Land parking issue

      By dx100uk · Posted

      The boundary wiill not be the yellow line.  Dx  
    • notodebt
      SJP letter from courts - Car tax fine

      By notodebt · Posted

      Afternoon all Looking for advice before I defend claim for car tax payment that the DVLA claim I owe £68 from an idemity claimback from my bank and unpaid tax  brief outline. Purchased car Jan 30th ,garage paid the tax for me after I gave them my card details  first payment £68 out in Feb 24  followed by payment of £31 from March due to end Jan 24 Checked one of my vehicle apps and about 7-10 days later car showing as untaxed? No reason why but it looks like DVLA cancelled it , this could be because I did not have the V5 and the gargae paid on my behalf but not sure did not receive a letter to say car was untaxed.  Fair enough I set up the tax again staight away in Feb 24  and first payment out Mar 31st , and each payment since has come out each month for £31 , this will end Feb/Mar 2025, slightly longer than the original tax set up, all good. I then claimed the £68 back from my bank as an indemity refund as obviously I had paid but DVLA had cancelled therefore it was a payment for nothing?  Last week recieved a SJP form dated 29th May stating that DVLA were claiming for unpaid tax and a false indemity claimback which of course is the £68. It also stated that I had received two previous letters offering me the oppotunity to pay that £68 but as I had not responded it was now a court claim that I must admit guilt for or defend. My post is held for weeks at a time from Royal Mail ( keepsafe) due to me receiving hospital tretament at weeks at a time that said I did not receive any previous letters from DVLA. I am happy to defend this and go to court but wondering what CAG members think? In summary I paid an initial amount of £68 and then a DD of £31 , tax cancelled  I set up a new DD at £31 a month all in the month of Feb 2024, I claimed the £68 back from my bank. DD has been coming out each month without issue and I have paperwork to show the breakdown for both DD setup's plus bank statements showing the payments coming out . The second DD set up has extended payments up to Feb/Mar 2025. DVLA claiming the £68 was ilegally claimed back despite the fact they cancelled the original DD for reasons unknown. Is this defendable ? I will post up documents including the original DD conformations 
    • tobyjugg2
      Should we trust Sunak or the next PM to fix the Country's problems? (title revised 24/10/22)

      By tobyjugg2 · Posted

      That doesn't look like clacton ... Former Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage buys coastal home in Lydd-on-Sea WWW.KENTONLINE.CO.UK Former Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage bought a coastal home in the county, it has been reported.  

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

HSBC T&Cs HERE

stax68

By stax68
in HSBC Bank

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5778 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

stax68

stax68

Posted
  • Author
Posted
As we havn't come across any t/c's for 1989 - it would be ok for me to use the closest to it ('96) yes? and highlight the bits you think are most relevant?

Thanks

Sha

 

When is the earliest charge you are claiming for? My understanding is that if it's post '96 then you won't need the earlier T&Cs.

 

I assume that at least some of the charges you are claiming for were taken since 96? If so, then you will definitely need T&Cs from 96 or later to cover those.

 

Basically, you need T&Cs covering all times that charges you are claiming for were taken. So if you are claiming for pre-96 charges, there is a currently a bit of a gap in your evidence, but I wouldn't worry too much.

 

Unless HSBC produce the older T&Cs in evidence, the likelihood is that the court will have to go with the assumption that they were similar in relevant respects before 96.

 

In other words, they will very probably give you the benefit of the doubt - because it's more likely that the older T&Cs were basically the same than that there was some unknown difference which just happens to undermine your case. This is especially true because the T&Cs didn't change significantly for ten years after 96 - until the recent rewrite last December, which was obviously a response to our claims!

 

So even if HSBC did produce them you would probably be OK, because it really is very likely that the older T&Cs will turn out to be much the same as the 96 ones in all relevant respects.

 

You can highlight the relevant passages and/or make a note of them and/or paste the text into a document, but if it comes to going to court, the most important thing is to make sure you understand what they prove and how it is relevant to your case. Its important even if you don't get to court You may already have it clear in your mind, but if not, and anyway for the sake of anyone else who might want clarification, I've updated the summary at http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/hsbc-bank/95312-hsbc-t-cs-here.html#post883209 to make it clear what I think the significance of the key terms is.

 

So if in doubt, look at that post.

 

Also keep an eye out for the official CAG HSBC T&Cs post, which may be appearing sometime soon. In the meantime, hope this helps.

 

cheers, stax

Link to post
Share on other sites
rob-the-viking

rob-the-viking

Posted
Posted

Stax, outstanding work! Good to see that a scanner and a many hours of photobucket action has turned out this work in progress! Your hard efforts will be of great use and reassurance to many people (myself included) engaged in war with the jokers at HSBC.

 

I tip my hat to you sir.

 

r-t-v

25/01/07 Statements collected online

27/01/07 Prelim sent

09/02/07 Thank you letter received (and duly ignored)

12/02/07 LBA on its way

27/02/07 MCOL filed

26/03/07 Defence entered

02/04/07 Notice of transfer paperwork received

10/04/07 Lattie's hastner sent

19/04/07 AQ arrived (never mind lattie!)

20/04/07 Last Chance letter sent to DG, AQ filled out.

08/05/07 AQ returned to courts, cc'd to DG

11/06/07 Request for the defence to be struck out sent after not hearing from the court for 5 long weeks.

14/06/07 Directions hearing set for the end of August. 10 long weeks away.

14/06/07 rob-the-viking waits yet longer......

23/08/07 DG apply for a stay, instantly granted by judge.

29/08/07 The waiting begins again, 7 months since prelim was sent.

 

"If you kick a Tiger in the ass, you'd better have a plan to deal with it's teeth!!"

Link to post
Share on other sites
stax68

stax68

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Stax - this is absolutely wonderful. You've made an old girl very happy! :D.

 

Is there any chance of making this a sticky rather than a thread?

 

Not in my power to, but hopefully something is in the pipeline.

Link to post
Share on other sites
welshbaba

welshbaba

Posted
Posted

Thanks for the info - was struggling trying to work out what I was looking for. Have read the link -(will be lots more I suspect) trying to get my head round it all and get it to sink in!!!!!!Still working it all out (or trying to)

By the way my claim is for period '01 - '07 I was asking for earlier coz I thought I saw somewhere to get t/cs's from when account opened. Ah well, prob brain in melt down again............

Thanks again

Sha

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...